There can be barely an adult male in Ireland who has not been stopped by some doorman or bouncer at a pub or a club and prevented from entering, usually with the spurious and tendentious query: "Are you a member (or couple, or regular)? Sorry. Members (etc) only."
Such obstructionism was a way of making the crowd within "desirable", though it was usually odious and unjust. But now, a different, but legally binding control to this discretionary system exists: any persons who sell drink are obliged by law to ask to see Garda ID cards of anyone they think might be underage. And students' cards will not suffice. Only a Garda age card is acceptable. That is the law.
Except, that is, if you are non-white, or a Traveller or an immigrant or are disabled in any way: for then you can invite the Equality Industry to come clunking into the matter, with some expectation that it will make a ruling in your favour.
Only conclusion
For that is the only conclusion you can come to following the ruling of the Equality Committee on the issue of Sajjad Sajjadi, who was prevented from entering The Turk's Head pub in Dublin by a doorman who asked to see a Garda card or a passport to prove his age. He had neither, merely his student card; but as we have seen, this is not acceptable in law.
Now The Turk's Head is not a racist pub, because, by his own account, Sajjad had drunk there before. But he is clearly a youthful looking man, and the doorman had no discretion over the matter, any more than a Tesco or Supervalu check-out assistant has. The law is simple. Under the Intoxicating Liquor Act, the only acceptable proof of age when there is doubt is a Garda age card.
So when the doorman suggested to Sajjadi that a passport would suffice as ID, he was actually being more tolerant than the law allows (for unlike the law it replaced, the current Intoxicating Liquor Act does not recognise a passport or driving licence as conclusive proof of age).
One of Sajjad's friends found him outside the pub and went in and told the manager, Rory Keogh, that his pub was racist. After hearing the outline of the story, the manager went outside, spoke to Sajjad and the doorman, and, after seeing Sajjad's student ID, allowed him in.
It was a prudent decision, but, like the doorman's offer to allow a passport serve as ID, it could prove legally questionable. But what does law matter in such issues? For if he hadn't allowed Sajjad Sajjadi in as he did, he might have been clobbered more heavily by the Equality Commission than he actually was.
For Sajjad, having been allowed into the pub, even though he lacked the proper ID, then complained to the Equality Committee, and for the half hour which he had been kept outside the pub, this week was awarded €1,500 damages by an equality officer.
Initial challenge
In fact, there was no way that The Turk's Head could have avoided breaking the law once the initial challenge had been made. The complainant did not have the requisite documents on him. The law is specific on that. To let him in without the document could leave the publican open to prosecution. But to demand it may also, apparently, be against the equality law.
Now all this is ludicrous; but it is all of a piece throughout. The equality ideologues appear to be making a nonsense of law, of common sense and of equality itself. Their law seems to operate beyond the reach or authority of ordinary law, and moreover, they are judges in their own courts.
Ethnic group
So what supermarket, pub or club will now challenge an immigrant or Traveller or any person from an ethnic group about their age? It's Salem logic and Salem law, but at least, so far, enacted without Salem lynching. And that is a small comfort.
But where do we go from here? How is the law on underage drinking to be enforced if young people from the white majority have to show Garda ID cards to prove their age, but any attempt to enforce the age law on the purchase of alcohol may be illegal discrimination if it is applied to a member of one our officially recognised minorities? For the equality courts are unlike any other courts. The equality officer who makes a ruling will do so on the basis of evidence assembled by his fellow equality inspectors. It is the equivalent of an investigator donning a wig and sitting on the bench.
At least Niall Crowley, the chief executive of the Equality Authority, is an unrepentant and open advocate of the equality agenda. We know where he stands.
But what about the legal profession? Are lawyers so paralysed by this creeping doctrinaire tide that they will do nothing, even as it washes aside the authority of the civil and criminal courts, of common law, and of Dáil Éireann itself? They have no choice. The ninnies in the Oireachteas will do nothing. We must look to the Four Courts to protect our liberties.